Evolution and Christianity and Salvation

[mrj]

i raised this issue on a Catholic forum recently and I was surprised how little it bothered people.  I claim that Catholicism and Evolution are not compatible, based on the following: 

Consider that it is a fundamental tenant of Christianity that ALL human beings, every one alive today, MUST trace their linage back to a single man (or woman) that committed the grave sin of rejecting God.  If you think this was Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, fine - you don't believe in Evolution and you can downgrade to other discussions on the topic. However, the general consensus of science-based Christians (including Cardinal Ratzinger) is that, if you want to rationalize evolution with Christian dogma, you must assume that ONE human being (and only one), at some time in our past, was 'injected' with a soul.  This was the first human being with a soul, perhaps 50,000 years ago (or 6,000 who knows).  This soul-endowed human then rejected God in some manner, committing the first sin, and henceforth all his progeny carry that burden forward throughout all of history.  Hence the need for salvation, and Jesus and the Resurrection, and so forth.  I have talked with many Catholics on this and this is not in dispute.  This is how you rationalize evolution with Christian dogma.

So...here was my point:   If you subscribe to the above Christian rationalization of Christianity, you MUST accept the following:

1) There was a large population of "soulless" people
2) The one person with a soul had parents that had no souls, and perhaps siblings with no souls
3) The one person lived in a world filled with contemporary people that had no souls
4) All genetic lines EXCEPT the one with the souled person died out, so for generations, many people continued to live and be born as human beings without souls until their lines all died.

The above is not my opinion.  This is what you MUST believe if you rationalize Christianity and Evolution.  This is foundation, and the essence of salvation.
Am I missing something?  In many ways I respect those that are Creationists, as at least that position is logically consistent.

One thing that has bothered me with religion is not so much that it can be false, but what you MUST accept if it were true.

[Yonadav]

i raised this issue on a Catholic forum recently and I was surprised how little it bothered people.  I claim that Catholicism and Evolution are not compatible, based on the following: 

Consider that it is a fundamental tenant of Christianity that ALL human beings, every one alive today, MUST trace their linage back to a single man (or woman) that committed the grave sin of rejecting God.  If you think this was Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, fine - you don't believe in Evolution and you can downgrade to other discussions on the topic. However, the general consensus of science-based Christians (including Cardinal Ratzinger) is that, if you want to rationalize evolution with Christian dogma, you must assume that ONE human being (and only one), at some time in our past, was 'injected' with a soul.  This was the first human being with a soul, perhaps 50,000 years ago (or 6,000 who knows).  This soul-endowed human then rejected God in some manner, committing the first sin, and henceforth all his progeny carry that burden forward throughout all of history.  Hence the need for salvation, and Jesus and the Resurrection, and so forth.  I have talked with many Catholics on this and this is not in dispute.  This is how you rationalize evolution with Christian dogma.

So...here was my point:   If you subscribe to the above Christian rationalization of Christianity, you MUST accept the following:

1) There was a large population of "soulless" people
2) The one person with a soul had parents that had no souls, and perhaps siblings with no souls
3) The one person lived in a world filled with contemporary people that had no souls
4) All genetic lines EXCEPT the one with the souled person died out, so for generations, many people continued to live and be born as human beings without souls until their lines all died.

The above is not my opinion.  This is what you MUST believe if you rationalize Christianity and Evolution.  This is foundation, and the essence of salvation.
Am I missing something?  In many ways I respect those that are Creationists, as at least that position is logically consistent.

One thing that has bothered me with religion is not so much that it can be false, but what you MUST accept if it were true.

Understood in that particular way, then all of the lines without souls did not have to die out; they merely have to have mixed with the line that has souls. The only way that it would be possible for any line to not have souls after many generations would be for a line originating from someone with no soul to exclusively mate with others with no soul for generation after generation. As lines with no soul become less and less common, the chances of a member of a line with no soul mating with the member of another line with no soul becomes less and less likely.

[downbeatplumb]

i raised this issue on a Catholic forum recently and I was surprised how little it bothered people.  I claim that Catholicism and Evolution are not compatible, based on the following: 

Consider that it is a fundamental tenant of Christianity that ALL human beings, every one alive today, MUST trace their linage back to a single man (or woman) that committed the grave sin of rejecting God.  If you think this was Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, fine - you don't believe in Evolution and you can downgrade to other discussions on the topic. However, the general consensus of science-based Christians (including Cardinal Ratzinger) is that, if you want to rationalize evolution with Christian dogma, you must assume that ONE human being (and only one), at some time in our past, was 'injected' with a soul.  This was the first human being with a soul, perhaps 50,000 years ago (or 6,000 who knows).  This soul-endowed human then rejected God in some manner, committing the first sin, and henceforth all his progeny carry that burden forward throughout all of history.  Hence the need for salvation, and Jesus and the Resurrection, and so forth.  I have talked with many Catholics on this and this is not in dispute.  This is how you rationalize evolution with Christian dogma.

So...here was my point:   If you subscribe to the above Christian rationalization of Christianity, you MUST accept the following:

1) There was a large population of "soulless" people
2) The one person with a soul had parents that had no souls, and perhaps siblings with no souls
3) The one person lived in a world filled with contemporary people that had no souls
4) All genetic lines EXCEPT the one with the souled person died out, so for generations, many people continued to live and be born as human beings without souls until their lines all died.

The above is not my opinion.  This is what you MUST believe if you rationalize Christianity and Evolution.  This is foundation, and the essence of salvation.
Am I missing something?  In many ways I respect those that are Creationists, as at least that position is logically consistent.

One thing that has bothered me with religion is not so much that it can be false, but what you MUST accept if it were true.

None of religion holds up to close scrutiny.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

i raised this issue on a Catholic forum recently and I was surprised how little it bothered people.  I claim that Catholicism and Evolution are not compatible, based on the following: 

Consider that it is a fundamental tenant of Christianity that ALL human beings, every one alive today, MUST trace their linage back to a single man (or woman) that committed the grave sin of rejecting God.  If you think this was Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, fine - you don't believe in Evolution and you can downgrade to other discussions on the topic. However, the general consensus of science-based Christians (including Cardinal Ratzinger) is that, if you want to rationalize evolution with Christian dogma, you must assume that ONE human being (and only one), at some time in our past, was 'injected' with a soul.  This was the first human being with a soul, perhaps 50,000 years ago (or 6,000 who knows).  This soul-endowed human then rejected God in some manner, committing the first sin, and henceforth all his progeny carry that burden forward throughout all of history.  Hence the need for salvation, and Jesus and the Resurrection, and so forth.  I have talked with many Catholics on this and this is not in dispute.  This is how you rationalize evolution with Christian dogma.

So...here was my point:   If you subscribe to the above Christian rationalization of Christianity, you MUST accept the following:

1) There was a large population of "soulless" people
2) The one person with a soul had parents that had no souls, and perhaps siblings with no souls
3) The one person lived in a world filled with contemporary people that had no souls
4) All genetic lines EXCEPT the one with the souled person died out, so for generations, many people continued to live and be born as human beings without souls until their lines all died.

The above is not my opinion.  This is what you MUST believe if you rationalize Christianity and Evolution.  This is foundation, and the essence of salvation.
Am I missing something?  In many ways I respect those that are Creationists, as at least that position is logically consistent.

One thing that has bothered me with religion is not so much that it can be false, but what you MUST accept if it were true.

An alternative explanation could very well be that, at some indeterminate point, all human beings were injected with souls, but only one rejected God, thus creating original sin. Once could even, I suppose, posit that God knew from 'go' which early life forms would lead to humans, and imbued only that particular genetic line with soul-osity.  This would pretty neatly explain why cats and frogs and yew trees have no souls.

Boru

[Brian37]

i raised this issue on a Catholic forum recently and I was surprised how little it bothered people.  I claim that Catholicism and Evolution are not compatible, based on the following: 

Consider that it is a fundamental tenant of Christianity that ALL human beings, every one alive today, MUST trace their linage back to a single man (or woman) that committed the grave sin of rejecting God.  If you think this was Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, fine - you don't believe in Evolution and you can downgrade to other discussions on the topic. However, the general consensus of science-based Christians (including Cardinal Ratzinger) is that, if you want to rationalize evolution with Christian dogma, you must assume that ONE human being (and only one), at some time in our past, was 'injected' with a soul.  This was the first human being with a soul, perhaps 50,000 years ago (or 6,000 who knows).  This soul-endowed human then rejected God in some manner, committing the first sin, and henceforth all his progeny carry that burden forward throughout all of history.  Hence the need for salvation, and Jesus and the Resurrection, and so forth.  I have talked with many Catholics on this and this is not in dispute.  This is how you rationalize evolution with Christian dogma.

So...here was my point:   If you subscribe to the above Christian rationalization of Christianity, you MUST accept the following:

1) There was a large population of "soulless" people
2) The one person with a soul had parents that had no souls, and perhaps siblings with no souls
3) The one person lived in a world filled with contemporary people that had no souls
4) All genetic lines EXCEPT the one with the souled person died out, so for generations, many people continued to live and be born as human beings without souls until their lines all died.

The above is not my opinion.  This is what you MUST believe if you rationalize Christianity and Evolution.  This is foundation, and the essence of salvation.
Am I missing something?  In many ways I respect those that are Creationists, as at least that position is logically consistent.

One thing that has bothered me with religion is not so much that it can be false, but what you MUST accept if it were true.

To focus on one club of antiquity misses the point that all the religious clubs back then made bad guesses.

There is no reason to believe that a baby has magic super powers, anymore than there is a reason to believe in Vishnu or Apollo or Buddha.

That was then, this is now.

[Yonadav]

And in the clubs of modernity some people will say the same thing over and over in every single discussion, multiple times per day, every day, for years on end. And they won't recognize this evidence that clearly indicates that they are crazy. It might be therapeutic for them to actually engage the specifics of the OP.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

There is no reason to believe that a baby has magic super powers

But babies DO have magic superpowers.  I'm a grown man, rapidly approaching my half-century mark.  I'm over six feet tall, well muscled, and still play rugby on occasion. I've been in bar fights, jail fights, and street riots.

And a six-months old infant can make me say things like, 'Woodgy woodgy woo - oo's a widdle man, den?  Duzzum gotta tummy tum tum?  Yezzim duz!'

If that's not a superpower, then nothing is.

Boru

[mrj]

I asked about that. There are no souls other than those that descend from the one that committed original sin. There are no souls whatsoever that are not descended from the one. Therefore, the first and only soul to exist was also the one that all subsequent souls inherited original sin from. There were no 'clean' souls. God picked one and only one person to carry that first soul - IF you want to reconcile evolution and Christianity (and the concept of original sin).

[Yonadav]

There is no reason to believe that a baby has magic super powers

But babies DO have magic superpowers.  I'm a grown man, rapidly approaching my half-century mark.  I'm over six feet tall, well muscled, and still play rugby on occasion. I've been in bar fights, jail fights, and street riots.

And a six-months old infant can make me say things like, 'Woodgy woodgy woo - oo's a widdle man, den?  Duzzum gotta tummy tum tum?  Yezzim duz!'

If that's not a superpower, then nothing is.

Boru

Give it a couple of more decades, and then you will have the power to make your nurses say things like that to you.

---

I asked about that.  There are no souls other than those that descend from the one that committed original sin.  There are no souls whatsoever that are not descended from the one.  Therefore, the first and only soul to exist was also the one that all subsequent souls inherited original sin from.  There were no 'clean' souls.  God picked one and only one person to carry that first soul - IF you want to reconcile evolution and Christianity (and the concept of original sin).

I assume that you are responding to my post. The person with the soul passes soul on to their descendants. So the descendants of anyone who interbreeds with any of the descendants of that one person are going to inherit from that person. After enough generations, everyone has inherited it, regardless of having ancestors who were contemporaries of that one person. The only way that it would be possible to not have inherited it, is if someone is descended from people who never interbred with that one line a single time. But their children would probably inherit it, because they are probably going to interbreed with someone who inherited it.

[brewer]

i raised this issue on a Catholic forum recently and I was surprised how little it bothered people.  I claim that Catholicism and Evolution are not compatible, based on the following: 

Consider that it is a fundamental tenant of Christianity that ALL human beings, every one alive today, MUST trace their linage back to a single man (or woman) that committed the grave sin of rejecting God.  If you think this was Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, fine - you don't believe in Evolution and you can downgrade to other discussions on the topic. However, the general consensus of science-based Christians (including Cardinal Ratzinger) is that, if you want to rationalize evolution with Christian dogma, you must assume that ONE human being (and only one), at some time in our past, was 'injected' with a soul.  This was the first human being with a soul, perhaps 50,000 years ago (or 6,000 who knows).  This soul-endowed human then rejected God in some manner, committing the first sin, and henceforth all his progeny carry that burden forward throughout all of history.  Hence the need for salvation, and Jesus and the Resurrection, and so forth.  I have talked with many Catholics on this and this is not in dispute.  This is how you rationalize evolution with Christian dogma.

So...here was my point:   If you subscribe to the above Christian rationalization of Christianity, you MUST accept the following:

1) There was a large population of "soulless" people
2) The one person with a soul had parents that had no souls, and perhaps siblings with no souls
3) The one person lived in a world filled with contemporary people that had no souls
4) All genetic lines EXCEPT the one with the souled person died out, so for generations, many people continued to live and be born as human beings without souls until their lines all died.

The above is not my opinion.  This is what you MUST believe if you rationalize Christianity and Evolution.  This is foundation, and the essence of salvation.
Am I missing something?  In many ways I respect those that are Creationists, as at least that position is logically consistent.

One thing that has bothered me with religion is not so much that it can be false, but what you MUST accept if it were true.

That's one massive rationalization, specifically # 2,3, and 4. #1 sounds correct. 

Has anyone ever provided concrete evidence of a god or a soul? (so much for 2 and 3) Do you/they have any evidence that all of the unsouled peoples died out? (OK, 4 is out) Maybe this is where the flood whacking gets stuck in. (add a whole new set of issues)

With that many hoops to jump thru I rather believe in aliens, if I have to believe in nonsense. Aliens only probe my ass at the worst.